Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: A way to create 4K DLP???

This is topic A way to create 4K DLP??? in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=000114

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-24-2005, 02:33 PM:

Looking at this thread from large format forum, would it be possible to create a 4k DLP projector by linking 4 2K DLP chips like sony is linking 3 of their technology for this large format application but instead of 4 separate projectors, combine all 4 chips in a single projector?

Posted by David Graham Rose (Member # 1450) on 06-24-2005, 03:28 PM:

No

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 06-24-2005, 04:01 PM:

I recall that it's been used to simulate a 4K presentation (at the USC Entertainment Technology Center), but is logistically difficult, and not likely in a commercial theatre environment.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 06-25-2005, 10:26 AM:

Apparently there are a few real 4k dlp projectors being shown. This does not mean that the dmds contain 8+ million mirrors. TI will probably use the speed of the mirrors to create 2-4 pixels on screen per mirror.

TI has also recently been able to decrease the pixel pitch from about 14 mircrometers down to about 11 micrometers. My bet is on dmds at 2048x2160 in diamond arrangement giving the chip a widescreen aspect ratio. The chip size would be about 1.5 inches, very close to the size of the Sony and JVC 4k panels.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 06-25-2005, 04:27 PM:

here is a curious question....Whey did we jump from 2k to 4k without experimenting with 3k? I have heard things like the 4k demos were to soft in there projected content. I wonder what 3k would have looked like or was it not possable.

Posted by Jon Morgan (Member # 3059) on 06-25-2005, 04:32 PM:

We could experiment with incremental increases and stop-gap measures till the cows come home, but in the end it would be best if they could pick a format, perfect it, and make it standard.

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-30-2005, 09:38 AM:

quote: Darryl Spicer
here is a curious question....Whey did we jump from 2k to 4k without experimenting with 3k? I have heard things like the 4k demos were to soft in there projected content. I wonder what 3k would have looked like or was it not possable.

Because 2048=2^11 and 4096=2^12. To address the chip once you go over 2048 you need to add another bit so why not use all 4096 available addresses. I have no knowlege of image processing but I assume that there must be some advantages to sticking to powers of 2 for image sizes.

quote: Mattias Ohlson
Apparently there are a few real 4k dlp projectors being shown. This does not mean that the dmds contain 8+ million mirrors. TI will probably use the speed of the mirrors to create 2-4 pixels on screen per mirror.

Where did you find out this information? What do you mean by the speed of the mirror? Are they shifting the whole chip 1/2 pixel each direction or something?

quote: Mattias Ohlson
My bet is on dmds at 2048x2160 in diamond arrangement giving the chip a widescreen aspect ratio.

Is that a typo? 2048x2160 is 1.05:1, certainly not widescreen. Why a diamond configuration?

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 06-30-2005, 02:04 PM:

Lyle R.
I got the information about 4k from someone that obviously knows what is going on behind the curtains.

About the aspect ratio
If you stand square pixels on the vertices to create a "diamond" pattern you will get a wider aspect ratio. Try it.

I expect shifting the image 1/2 pixel or so. By doing this you can use a smaller chip and pixel structure will essentially be eliminated. (that is what is believed)

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-30-2005, 02:22 PM:

Mattias,

Your information is very encouraging. 4k DLP will give theatres what they need to survive, a significantly higher resolution that will be available from 1080p DVDs.

I'm all for digital projection if it can provide a picture quality comparable to the best available film technology. I just hope that the industry holds up a forced large-scale rollout until this criteria is met.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 06-30-2005, 06:12 PM:

I don´t know but I would not expect 4k availability until late 2006 or 2007. I am not in the know really so it is still hard to tell. However 2k is expected for high end home cinema in 2006 so I hope there will be 4k to set the cinematic experience apart from any home theater experience. I know there is alot that makes up a real cinema experience. A bigger screen is a bigger screen and so on.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-04-2005, 06:05 AM:

The problem is, unless DCinema can be developed so that the digital projector can produce at least as good an image as the 35mm film that it is going to replace, be it 4K, 8K, whatever it takes, then this "rolling out" of various inferior resolutions before the goal is met, is going to be devestating to any kind of industry-wide standard. There are 1K projectors already out there (you know, the ones that the TI publicity machine hawked as producing an image "better than film.") Then came 1.3K, then 2K, and by 2007 is it? that we are going to have 4K projectors? So why are they installing 100 2K D-projectors that will be obsolete by 2007?

No one is going to tell me that the theatres that have invested heavily in these new yet inferior 2k units are going to chuck them out the window when the next generation of 4K projectors become available. This kind of hugely expensive technology doesn't easily get replaced. A theatre spends $120k on a piece of equipement, they don't stand up and do a jig when they are told that, Oh, yah, that 2K projector you bought last year and of which you are so proud is now condidered substandard, low-rez; you've got to buy a new one." Not gonna happen. The fact is, this rush to D-Cinema, because of the expense per unit is SO astronomical, whatever the industry moves to now will be what we will have to live with because of the expense to upgrade will be prohibitive. Luckily only a handful of 1k projectors actually got installed.

Are these units designed so that they can be upgraded to higher rez chips fairly easily? And even if it can be done with more or less ease, you KNOW that kind of an upgrade and alignement, etc, is still going to cost big bucks. Why would an exhibitor or ANY rational person buy into this kind of liability? especially one who's already been burned by getting in on the ground floor of DLP, only to find the second and third floors falling in on his head!

If I were an exhibitor and somehow someone convinced me that it was to MY economic advantage to install digital equipment, I would damn well insist that the manufacturer give me insurance that if the projector become obsoleted by higher resolution technology within say two or three years, they foot the cost of replacing whatever innards of the projector have to be replaced.

Bottom line (and the reason I am an anti-digital fan AT THIS TIME) is that they are putting this stuff out to early as a viable alternative to film when it does not meet the quality of film. That puts us in peril of being locked into a mediocre system that will be the lot of future generations. Just so that greedy people can make gobs of money, we, the general public get stuck with the uneven implimentation of technology which will vary from theatre to theatre, even within the same multiplex.

And you can take it to the bank that John Q. Public hears all the hype about digital, so he plops his butt down in a theatre that is claiming digital projection, but he has no way of knowing if this is a theatre that's got a 1K, 1.3K, 2K or a 4K video projecter in the booth. Yet you can be sure no matter what level of image quality he is going to be subjected to, he will have to pay the same $10 per ticket, 1k or 4k, makes no difference.

Because of what we do now, if we accept what is passable...what is "good enough," future generations may never be able to know what we all experiences when we see those incredible 70mm classics. Think of what a loss that will represent. In 2100 there won't be anyone talking about seeing sprockets on the screen or slight black lines at the edge of the screen at a 70mm presentation of LOA. All the efforts of digital technology will be gone to being able to have it converted to 3D and projected with a 2K video projector.

Excuse me....I am going to be sick.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 07-04-2005, 07:00 AM:

I don't know, Frank. What with all the whining everyone did over spending <$ 1 kBuck for analog red readers... and with EVERY new screen up here that I know of installing 35mm... It's all just talk... and mainly by the manufacturers and trade pubs.

A 2-3 year assurance of non-obsolescensce? The way these chains are about spending money after their initial investment... try maybe 20.

Posted by Mattias Ohlson (Member # 1662) on 07-04-2005, 11:49 AM:

My outside perspective is this.

TI should really have started with todays 2k. These units does produce a good picture quality. Earlier generations were perhaps a little premature but 2k is a place to start. I see no reason why installed 2k units can not be kept in service. Why would you have to throw out 2k as soon as there is 4k?

One problem might be that the dlp camp are pushing 2k too hard now since they will get competition that will start at 4k.

A slow adoption of 2k with a wider roll out at 4k is ok to me as an outsider. I will pay the ticket price in the end. If some or most choose to stay with average 35mm presentation that is fine but it will not drag me to the local cinema.

I would go to see
1 new generation improved 35mm with the best film stock and 48fps
2 digital at 4k

[ 07-05-2005, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Mattias Ohlson ]

Posted by Jean-Pierre Van Hoof (Member # 2063) on 07-04-2005, 01:23 PM:

We didn't buy our 2k-Christie but leased it so when something better is comming up we get that instead.